In recent years Lebanon has taken important steps towards greater
promotion and protection of human rights. Already a state party to many important human
rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), in
2000 Lebanon acceded to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).

However, despite these positive developments and significant changes in
legislation to strengthen human rights safeguards, certain categories of detainees,
including the so-called Dhinniyyah group, remain at risk of serious human rights
violations including torture and unfair trial.

Categories of political prisoners particularly targeted include members of
opposition parties and groups, both from Christian and Sunni Muslim communities, and
people held in connection with their alleged collaboration or
contact with Israel. They are normally detained incommunicado for weeks and,
in some cases, even their names or places of detention are not made public.

These categories of people, according to research carried out by Amnesty
International, are more vulnerable to human rights abuses for their political opposition
to the government and/or the Syrian military presence in Lebanon. In pre-trial detention
members of Sunni Muslim groups are often labelled by the media and government officials as
terrorists or affiliates of al-Qaida, and Christian political activists
risk being labelled as collaborators with Israel. In both cases such
categorization can seriously prejudice the right to fair trial.

Over the years Amnesty International has documented patterns of torture
and brought them to the attention of the authorities. In August 2001 Amnesty International
documented the torture of women political detainees and common law offenders including
minors. The report included detailed case studies and called on the Lebanese authorities
to ensure that all allegations of torture against women be promptly, impartially,
independently and thoroughly investigated, in accordance with international treaties. The
organization also urged that minor female offenders be protected and held separately from
adult offenders while in detention and not be subjected to torture or ill-treatment.

In November 2001 when the Secretary General of Amnesty International
raised in a meeting with Lebanons President Emile Lahoud the issue of torture and
ill-treatment of detainees while being held incommunicado, he immediately contacted the
relevant authorities instructing them to look into the matter. The President emphasized
Lebanons commitment to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, which
Amnesty International welcomed.

However, no thorough investigation is known to have been carried out and
in a statement dated 11 November 2002 and published by the Lebanese media on 31 December
2002, Public Prosecutor Judge Adnan Addoum, summarily dismissed Amnesty
Internationals reports of torture and ill-treatment of victims as baseless and
fabricated allegations. Referring to the Dhinniyyah detainees case he stated
that allegations that the detainees were subjected to ill-treatment while being
interrogated by the military police have no basis in truth. He also denied the use
of electric shocks ... especially since the police and the intelligence organs do
not possess such equipment All the security organs in charge of places of detention
carry out their duties with total discipline and adherence to laws [and] should there be
any violation or excess, which rarely occur, the competent authorities, especially the
judiciary, would put their hand on the issue, without delay, to pursue perpetrators and
take measures to ensure that the violation is not repeated.

Amnesty International is concerned at the Lebanese authorities
repeated dismissal of credible allegations of torture and ill-treatment of political
detainees including those held in connection with the Dhinniyyah events. Under
Lebanons obligations in accordance with CAT it is required to carry out independent,
thorough and prompt investigations into all allegations of torture.

This report documents torture, ill-treatment and unfair trial of detainees
who have been in detention mostly since late 1999 and early 2000 in connection with their
alleged involvement in the Dhinniyyah armed clashes. The report highlights serious
violations of these political prisoners rights in pre-trial detention, including
reports of torture and ill-treatment, extraction of confessions under torture
or duress, the prosecutions demands for the death penalty against the detainees
through invocation of exceptional Law 11 of 1958, and trial before the Justice Council
whose procedures fall short of international standards.

1.2 Lebanons international legal obligations

Despite Lebanons accession to the CAT, insufficient measures appear
to have been taken to protect detainees against torture and ill-treatment or to curtail
the use of incommunicado detention which facilitates the practice of torture.

In April 1997 the Human Rights Committee (HRC), after examining
Lebanons second periodic report on its implementation of the ICCPR, expressed
concern over well substantiated allegations of acts of torture and cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment committed by the State party's police, the Lebanese security
forces and non-Lebanese security forces operating within the State party's territory
and recommended that the State party investigate the credible allegations of
instances of ill-treatment and torture which have been brought to the Committee's
attention.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has called for a total ban on
incommunicado detention. He stated, ''[t]orture is most frequently practised during
incommunicado detention. Incommunicado detention should be made illegal and persons held
incommunicado should be released without delay. Legal provisions should ensure that
detainees be given access to legal counsel within 24 hours of detention.''

Furthermore, the UN Commission on Human Rights has stated that ''prolonged
incommunicado detention may facilitate the perpetration of torture and can in itself
constitute a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.''

Freedom from torture is a non-derogable right under international human
rights treaties and Lebanon, as a state party to the CAT, is legally bound, according to
Article 2, to take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures
to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. Furthermore, the
CAT stipulates that [n]o exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of
war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may
be invoked as a justification of torture. Amnesty International has welcomed
Lebanons accession to the CAT in 2000. However, the organization is concerned that
adequate legislative and practical steps have yet to be taken to implement the provisions
of this convention. Independent, prompt and impartial investigations into numerous reports
of torture and ill-treatment of detainees (belonging to various political and religious
persuasions), have yet to be initiated. These shortcomings have been documented in the
reports of UN treaty monitoring bodies.

Amnesty International calls on the authorities to implement the
recommendations made by the HRC in 1997 as shown above. All investigations of torture must
be carried out in accordance with international human rights treaties and standards, and
in particular the Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, annexed to UN General
Assembly resolution 55/89 of 4 December 2000. Principle 2 of the document provides that:

[s]tates shall ensure that complaints and reports of torture and
ill-treatment are promptly and effectively investigated. Even in the absence of an express
complaint, an investigation shall be undertaken if there are other indications that
torture or ill-treatment might have occurred. The investigators, who shall be independent
of the suspected perpetrators and the agency they serve, shall be competent and impartial.
They shall have access to, or be empowered to commission investigations by, impartial
medical or other experts. The methods used to carry out such investigations shall meet the
highest professional standards and the findings shall be made public.

In the same manner the authorities must investigate all cases, including
those featured in this report, where confessions have allegedly been extracted
under torture. As a state party to the CAT Lebanon must, pursuant to Article 15
ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of
torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person
accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

2. Background

2.1 An overview of political developments in Lebanon since the Taif
Agreement

Lebanon remains ruled by means of a confessional arrangement, with the
President of the Republic hailing from the Maronite Christian Community; the Prime
Minister from the Sunni Muslim Community; and the Speaker of Parliament from the
Shia Muslim Community.

Since the Taif Agreement of 1989 which brought an end to the civil
war, the country has enjoyed significant political stability, but large sections of the
population still remain opposed to the post-war arrangement which endorsed the Syrian
military presence in Lebanon and left the door open for increased Syrian influence over
the political affairs of the country. Following the Taif Agreement the Lebanese and
Syrian authorities signed a number of agreements, prominent among them was the Treaty of
Brotherhood, Cooperation and Coordination (TBCC) concluded in May 1991, and the Defence
and Security Pact (DSP) signed in September 1991.

The DSP led to the establishment of a joint Committee for Defence and
Security which meets every three months in Syria or Lebanon. Among the objectives of the
DSP is ensuring, within the framework of the TBCC, that Lebanon is not a source of
threat to Syrias security or Syria a source of nuisance or threat
to Lebanon; and the eradication of any activity or organization in the military, security
and political domains that may pose threats to either country.

In practice the DSP has curtailed freedom of expression and association in
the country. Political groups and parties not endorsed by the Syrian authorities are not
authorized, and their members risk serious human rights violations, including arbitrary
detention and torture. These include members of the unauthorized Lebanese Forces Party
(LFP), the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) and members of a number of Sunni political
formations opposed to the government and seen as a threat to Syrian interests in Lebanon,
especially in the north and the Beqa where Syria has an overwhelming military and
security presence.

Groups opposing the Taif Agreement including the FPM led by the
former interim Prime Minister General Michel Aoun, were subjected to various human rights
violations particularly during the period 1990 to 1995. In recent years the FPM and the
LFP have been involved in peaceful opposition activities against the government and Syrian
presence in the country, resulting in further human rights violations against their
members. These and other opposition groups, including Sunni Islamist groups, also remain
proscribed by the government and are therefore denied their right to political
participation and freedom of expression.

Since the Taif Agreement Syria has maintained tens of thousands of
troops with the agreement of the Lebanese government in different parts of the country.
Since 2000 and apparently as a result of increasing calls for withdrawal of Syrian troops
from Lebanon, thousands of troops have been redeployed since 2000 with many of them
returning to Syria. Most recently in February 2003, thousands of troops were redeployed
from Syrias strong-holds including the Batrun area. However, redeployment apparently
did not include troops stationed in the north including Tripoli, Akkar and
Dhinniyyah, reportedly due to the presence of Islamist groups which are considered to pose
threats to security there, following the Dhinniyyah armed clashes of 1999 between the
Lebanese army and security forces and Sunni Islamist activists, which are the subject of
this report. The Taif Agreement had called for the redeployment of all Syrian troops
in Lebanon to the Beqa valley within two years of its signing in 1989.

Over the last 10 years, Lebanon has seen a steady growth of civil society
and the emergence of hundreds of groups and associations covering civil, political,
social, cultural and economic rights serving various sections of the Lebanese society.
Some of these, especially those focusing on womens rights and the death penalty,
achieved significant successes in recent years despite mounting difficulties including
government restrictions on freedom of association and lack of resources. The rejuvenation
of civil society in Lebanon, coupled with increasing attention to human rights both by the
state and law enforcement institutions, allowed Amnesty International to establish strong
working relations with the emerging human rights community, as well as to consolidate
dialogue with the authorities with a view to promotion and protection of human rights.
However, the work of many human rights groups, especially those focusing on civil and
political rights, remains influenced by the confessional system in the country which may
induce such groups to be more responsive to their immediate constituency rather than
catering for the needs of all sections of society regardless of religious and political
affiliations.

The political leadership of the Sunni Community has historically centred
around clans in Tripoli, Beirut and Sidon. However, the period during and after the end of
the civil war witnessed the emergence of a number of Sunni groups in the political scene
embracing more pronounced religious agenda and with different forms of organization. These
groups appear to share a common resentment of the current confessional system of
government and what they regard as their marginalization by the ruling Sunni clans.
Prominent among these are the Tripoli-based al-Jamaa al-Islamiyyah (The Islamic
Group), and Harakat al-Tawhid al-Islami (The Islamic Unification Movement). However, only
al-Jamaa al-Islamiyyah has managed so far to secure seats in parliament. In addition
to the presence of Islamist opposition groups, the Sunni Muslims of the north also claim
that successive Lebanese governments have failed to heed their calls for social justice,
including addressing unequal development and social and economic deprivation. These
factors have led in recent years to occasional confrontations, sometimes violent, between
sections of the Sunni communities in the north and the authorities. This in turn has
resulted in serious human rights violations against Sunni Islamist activists, such as
arbitrary detention, torture and unfair trial.

2.2 The Dhinniyyah events

The Dhinniyyah group is a collective of Sunni Islamist activists who are
opposed to the present Lebanese government and to the Syrian presence in Lebanon. The
group appears to be bonded together by personal and family relations as is evident from
the names of the members. The leader of the group was Bassam al-Kinj (also known as
Abu-Ayisha). The nucleus of the group was reportedly established in 1997 by
Abu-Ayisha and a small number of friends. Like other Sunni Islamist groups in the
underdeveloped north of Lebanon, and around Tripoli, the Dhinniyyah group believe they are
marginalized by the state and that their interests are not protected by the current
confessional system of government in Lebanon. In addition they are believed to be linked
to other Sunni Islamist groups in the region including Jamat al-Tawheed and Usbat
al-Ansar, the latter being regarded by the Lebanese authorities as a terrorist
group.

The Dhinniyyah group initiated a number of activities including annual
encampments involving Islamic teaching and training in the use of arms. Three encampments
were reportedly organized in Jurud al-Dhinniyyah (a barren and open area of Dhinniyyah) in
the spring and summer of 1998, and winter of 1999. The latter was held during the last 10
days of Ramadan and according to the Dhinniyyah group was devoted to worship and military
training to prepare for the liberation of Lebanese lands occupied by Israel. The Lebanese
authorities claim that these encampments were used to plot a military insurrection against
the present government.

Many questions remain unanswered as to how the tensions between the
Dhinniyyah group and the authorities turned into violence. However, it is believed that
one of the factors that triggered the clashes was the large scale presence of the army in
the north over the Christmas and New Year festivities to maintain security and
to pursue suspects allegedly involved in the bombings of Orthodox Churches in the Tripoli
area in October and November 1999. The army erected checkpoints and established patrols in
the area. An army unit was deployed in the village of Asun with the purpose of
monitoring the area and searching for two extremist Islamist activists not
affiliated to known Islamist organizations for their alleged involvement in the
Tripoli bombings

. It was also reported that the clampdown on this group was ordered by
Syria in the wake of mass arrests there in December 1999 of hundreds of Islamist activists
mostly belonging to the unauthorized Sunni Islamist group Hizb al-Tahrir.

The clashes took place in three areas: around the building of al-Hidayah
wa al-Islah (Guidance and Reform) Islamic radio station in Asun where members of the
group were dug in; in Jurud al-Dhinniyyah; and in the village of Kafr Habbu. The clashes
apparently erupted following the failure of efforts by community leaders, the local member
of parliament and Islamic groups to end the dispute peacefully. The clashes continued for
four days and involved thousands of troops using tanks and artillery. As a result,
according to official figures, five civilians, including three women, were killed, in
addition to dozens of Dhinniyyah group members and 11 soldiers. Some of the Dhinniyyah
group members killed were among 28 people named by the authorities to have been involved
in the fighting around the Islamic radio station building and in Jurud al-Dhinniyyah and
Kafr Habbu. No independent investigations are known to have been carried out into the
killings.

The state has a clear obligation to maintain security and protect the
people from acts of violence. In all cases, such measures must be in harmony with
fundamental human rights, and not at their expense.

The precarious situation of the Dhinniyyah detainees was further
exacerbated by the post 11 September international climate. Under US pressure to show that
it was serious about tackling terrorism Lebanon introduced new security
measures which particularly targeted Sunni Islamist activists. This was apparently a
reaction to the US pressure on the authorities to reign in Hizbullah, which the US has
designated as a terrorist group.

The targeting of Sunni Islamist activists was admitted publicly by the
Minister of Interior, Elias al-Murr, who spoke in an interview with the Lebanese As-Safir
newspaper on 28 October 2002, about the security measures taken against Islamists and how
he ordered large-scale arbitrary arrests of hundreds of Sunni Muslims without due legal
process. He is quoted as saying,

Since the events of Dhinniyyah which took place before 11 September
2001 ... and after 11 September we have as the Ministry of Interior, the Lebanese
government and state arrested a large number of Muslims, at times arbitrarily, and at
times in numbers that filled trucks. I have personally given orders in certain Lebanese
areas for the residents of whole villages to be arrested when receiving a certain
complaint. To protect our country and its environs and name abroad we were first carrying
out arrests and later sorting out those involved. We have arrested hundreds of Muslims and
only a minority were referred to the judiciary. This is horrible This is the first
time I talked to the media about something which has taken place and about which there was
not a word in any newspaper in Lebanon. You may hear about the arrest of some in
connection with al-Qaida, but the security action which has continued since 11
September and until now has involved the arrest of hundreds of Muslims in silence.

The Dhinniyyah detainees were arrested in a wave of clampdowns from
January to April 2000 by the military intelligence and other security forces in the wake
of the Dhinniyyah events. During the initial wave of arrests scores were rounded up by
members of the military intelligence from their homes, places of work and at road-blocks
and taken to the Ministry of Defence Detention Centre. Arrests took place apparently
without warrant in areas including Tripoli, Beirut and the Beqa.

Those arrested in the Tripoli area were initially held at al-Qubba
detention centre where they were reportedly tortured and ill-treated and then transferred
to the Ministry of Defence Detention Centre. They were held there for up to two months
without access to their families and lawyers. Families of the detainees became aware of
the whereabouts of their relatives only about two months after their arrest and following
their transfer to Qasr Nura Prison.

The detainees were not brought promptly before the examining magistrate,
not informed of the charges brought against them or of their rights during pre-trial
detention as stipulated by the Lebanese law. Article 47 of the New Code of Criminal
Procedures

(NCCP) provides that the detainee is entitled to communicate with his/her
family, employer and a lawyer, rights which must be communicated to the detainee
immediately on arrest. Any infringement of these procedures amounts to curtailment
of liberty and is punishable by Article 367 of the Penal Code. Article 76 of the
NCCP requires that the defendant be informed in the first instance of the charges brought
against him/her so that s/he may refute them. Failure to inform the defendant of the
offence attributed to him/her of the right to have a lawyer renders the investigation null
and void.

Amnesty Intentional believes that there were serious violations of the
rights of detainees in pre-trial detention including denial of the presumption of
innocence as required by the NCCP. Since the arrest and subsequent referral of the
Dhinniyyah detainees to the Justice Council the group has been described in media reports,
based on information provided by the authorities, as being affiliated to al-Qaida
and terrorism in a manner that seriously prejudices the right to fair trial,
including their right to the presumption of innocence. For example the Minister of
Interior, Elias al-Murr, was quoted as describing the Dhinniyyah detainees as a
group of thugs who attacked the army they are criminals and stated that the
measures taken against them come in the context of what he termed globalization of
security

4. Indictment of the Dhinniyyah detainees

In July 2000 Mount Lebanon Criminal Court (MLCC) indicted 120 men, dozens
of them in absentia, for their alleged connection with the Dhinniyyah clashes and charged
them on various counts of attacking internal state security several months
after their arrest. The court divided them into seven categories.

The first group of those allegedly involved in the Dhinniyyah events was
described as those who took part in the fighting against the army in the villages of
Asun and Kafr Habbu. They were identified as Abd al-Munim Zarur,
Ahmad al-Darj, Azzam Ghanem and Yahya Miqati, who are now held at Rumieh Prison, and
16 others including the leader of the group, Bassam al-Kinj, who were killed during the
clashes.

A second group was identified as those who took part in direct fighting
with the army in Jurud al-Dhinniyyah, including Mumtaz Minawi, Said Minawi, Ubaydah
al-Sharif al-Darwish, Muhammad al-Mahmud and Khaled Kharmah and three others who were
killed during the clashes.

A third group was described by the court as a support group in the
fight against the army in the Dhinniyyah plains and comprised: Rudwan Jabakhanji,
Luey al-Said, Umar al-Rifai, Khaled al-Mahmud, Bilal al-Mahmud and
Khaled Minawi. They, according to the indictment, did not take part in the actual fighting
against the army in the Dhinniyyah plains although their presence near the fighting group
was meant to obstruct the advance of the army. They were also accused of hiding weapons
and other equipment and charged under provisions of the Penal Code and Articles 3, 4, 6
and 7 of Law 11 of 1958.

A fifth group was described by the MLCC as having been trained in the use
of firearms but not with having taken part in the clashes. They were identified as Bahjat
Jubarah, Mazyad Ghayth, Muhiy al-Din Umays, Ahmad Abu-Ghosh, Gasim Hawan, Jamal
Umays, Zuhayr Umays, Fadi Ghayth, Wisam Umar, Yahya Hatem, Abdalla
Murib, Fadi Taybah, Fawwaz Ubayd, Khaled Maqsud, Yahya al-Usta, Wisam
al-Maghrabi, Hasan Naba, Muhammad Sanuha, Ali Abd al-Hadi, Shadi
Atawi, Shadi Shaban and Muhammad al-Hamawi.

The indictment links the Dhinniyyah group to the unauthorized Sunni
Islamist group Usbat al-Ansar or League of Followers, which the authorities regard
as a terrorist organization posing a threat to internal state security. The
group is also on the EU and the US lists of terrorist organizations. The
leader of the group who has been identified by the court as Ahmad Abd al-Karim
al-Saadi (also known as Abu-Muhjin) was charged with providing moral and material
support in the form of weapons and personnel to the leaders of the Dhinniyyah group. Ahmad
Abd al-Karim al-Saadi is still being sought by the security forces in
connection with the Dhinniyyah events, but has already been sentenced to death in absentia
by the Military Court on various charges related to a separate case involving attacks on
internal state security.

Numerous charges were brought against the above named men under the
provisions of Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 of Law 11 (on terrorism) of 1958, and Articles
303, 304, 335, 547, 459, 201, 217, 218, and 381 of the Penal Code, as follows:

Attacking internal state security to incite armed rebellion against the
authorities with the aim of preventing them from carrying out their duties;

Setting up armed groups with the object of carrying out crimes against
people and property;

Inciting sectarian and ideological feuds within the Lebanese community;

Harming the authority and the prestige of the state and its civil,
military, economic and financial institutions;

Violence against the army using unlicensed weapons to prevent it from
carrying out its duties, causing the death of 11 army officers and injuring others;

Killings of civilians, and possession of and transporting unlicensed war
weapons.

Members of the Dhinniyyah group are, under Decree 2081 of 5 January 2000,
defined as internal state security offenders. As such they do not enjoy the
legal safeguards accorded by the NCCP to those held in pre-trial detention. According to
Article 108 of the NCCP, detainees held on any charge, apart from those related to state
security or drugs, shall be held in pre-trial detention for up to six months extendable
only once by another six months. Rather than ensuring the rights of detainees enshrined in
the NCCP and human rights treaties and standards, the authorities were quick to invoke Law
11 of 1958 which, as emergency legislation, leads to the automatic curtailment of some of
the pre-trial rights of detainees. Invoking Law 11 means that detainees may be subject to
the death penalty.

Law 11 of 1958 deals, among other things, with offences related to
inciting civil war and sectarian strife and involvement in
terrorism. Once invoked Law 11 supersedes the Penal Code leading to the
suspension of Articles 308-313 and Article 315 of the Penal Code which deal with these
offences and stipulates a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for such offences. Law 11
contains eight articles and provides the death penalty for the above offences and curtails
the right of the defendants to be tried before an ordinary court. Cases involving offences
contained in this law are referred to the Military Court or the Justice Council. The
Dhinniyyah detainees are charged under Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 of this law on offences
including attacks and attempted attacks with the intention of inciting civil war and
racial feud and carrying out acts of terrorism.

5. Torture and ill-treatment during incommunicado detention

Amnesty Internationals findings in relation to the Dhinniyyah case
show that the detainees apparently were invariably subjected to torture and/or
ill-treatment during various stages of their detention, particularly when held
incommunicado, apparently because members of the Military Intelligence wanted to obtain as
much evidence from the detainees as possible to be used in court against them.

One of the detainees, Dr Muhammad Khaled, a teacher born in Tripoli in
1962, with dual Lebanese and British nationality, was arrested on 24 January 2000. About
three weeks before his arrest he received anonymous phone calls telling him that he was
being sought by the security forces. When he was called a second time he decided to report
to the security forces with his brother and another relative. There he was told that he
had to report to the Ministry of Defence. On arrival at the Ministry of Defence, he was
forced into a room where he was ordered to take off all his clothes and then allowed to
put some of them back on. All his belongings including his mobile phone and money were
taken away. He was moved to another room where he was blindfolded and handcuffed, his
hands bound behind his back, and ordered to stand with his face against the wall with his
legs stretched apart. He remained in this position for seven hours without food or drink;
he was not allowed to talk and was beaten from time to time. He said he was interrogated
for hours while being tortured and that this would be interrupted only when he was unable
to talk, at which time he would be given some water. The beatings stopped when his left
leg and arm swelled severely. He said he heard the screams of people being interrogated
under torture. He stated to Amnesty International:

After about six days of interrogation under torture I was ordered to
quickly sign some papers without reading them. I was told that I had no choice but to sign
because the other option was torture. When I insisted on reading the documents first they
threatened to rape my wife. At the time I was blindfolded and handcuffed and they
continued to insult and humiliate me. They told me that my wife was also in detention and
that they would let me go if I signed the papers. I was then shown where to sign and I put
my signature there. Then mockingly they told me you are signing your death
warrant.

After that I remained held incommunicado in solitary confinement and
was later transferred to a nearby building, apparently to allow the marks of torture,
including the swelling, to heal. On 12 February I was taken blindfolded to somewhere which
I thought was another place of detention only to be told that I was being brought before
the investigating magistrate. I was told that I must not deny or change the statement I
signed, otherwise torture would be repeated. The magistrate was accompanied by two plain
clothes intelligence officers and a clerk. Later on we were joined by another man who I
was told was a lawyer appointed by my brother to defend me. I told the magistrate that I
had not read the papers that I signed and he said that was not a problem. He didnt
appear to take notice of what I said and continued his interrogation on the basis of the
papers presented to him, despite what I told him about my torture.

Apparently detainees were routinely held for prolonged periods in fixed
positions in underground cells at the Ministry of Defence Detention Centre. Some were
subjected to electric shocks and the ballanco (hanging by the wrists which are tied behind
the back) mainly to coerce them to make confessions.

Umar Miqati, a mechanic born in Tripoli in 1967 and married with
five children, was arrested in April 2000 at Beirut airport then allowed to contact his
family straightaway. He stated to Amnesty International delegates that the Dhinniyyah
arrests took place in batches and came in the wake of other arrests of Islamists following
the church bombings around Tripoli in October and November 1999. He said that following
the Dhinniyyah events he noticed that he was under surveillance by the security forces and
thought he was being used as bait to track down others. He said an official
statement was issued by the authorities, and widely publicised in the media, about the
arrest of a senior member of the Dhinniyyah group who was attempting to
escape the country. He told Amnesty International:

I was tortured several times by the ballanco. The officer was aiming
to get me to divulge information and to admit that I was part of the Dhinniyyah group and
that we were planning a military action. He meant to insult me because of my ideological
affiliation. He threatened to arrest my brothers to coerce me to confess what he wanted,
and to refer me to Syrian Intelligence. There were also threats to attack my family.
During the course of interrogation and torture I fell unconscious twice.

Finally, as a result of torture and as means to stop it, I signed
papers without knowing their content. They claimed that that I have relations with
al-Qaida.

On the seventh day I was transferred to the Ministry of Defence
Detention Centre in al-Yarze. I was full of fear and was praying to God to be dead before
my arrival so they could not touch me.

At the Ministry of Defence I was tortured and interrogated
continually while verbal abuse continued. I was overwhelmed by physical and mental
weakness and was vomiting blood and my urine was discoloured. It was impossible to sleep
as I was handcuffed, cold and hungry. Twenty-four hours after my arrival I was ordered to
take off all my clothes. I refused to undress initially as this was against my religion,
but I was forced to undress and forced to remain so for about 15 minutes as a humiliation
before I was allowed to dress again.

Former Dhinniyyah detainees also described to Amnesty International
denigration of their religious beliefs and being prevented from praying, the use of
sexually abusive threats against their female relatives and being forced to listen to
screams of other detainees being tortured. The detainees said torture continued for weeks
and sometimes beyond the period of interrogation carried out by Military Intelligence.
Even after being referred to the investigating magistrate, detainees said they remained
blindfolded with their hands cuffed or tied behind their backs. At times they would be
suspended in contorted positions and at times kept standing for hours with their faces to
the wall. Detainees suffered electric shocks and verbal abuse. They would be interrogated
for many hours, normally during the night and deprived of food for days on end. The
detainees said they were deprived of sleep, subjected to beatings and repeatedly
humiliated, for example being forced to undress apparently to be degraded and humiliated
as Islamist activists. Umar Miqati told Amnesty International:

Throughout seven days of detention I remained blindfolded except for
brief periods. I was tortured using suspension by the ballanco and would remain suspended
for about an hour and a half. While I was held in that position I was beaten with sticks
and cables on my feet under the supervision of a colonel. I remained without food for 24
hours, physically and mentally exhausted. I was deprived of sleep and cut off from the
outside world, held blindfolded in a dark room. It was like a grave. Interrogation
continued throughout the seven days, interrupted only by beatings and mostly during the
night.

At the Ministry of Defence Detention Centre detainees are currently held
in cruel and inhuman conditions in overcrowded cells, some are kept handcuffed and
blindfolded in the corridors. Underground cells are about three by two metres and there is
no natural light. According to one detainee, [i]t was like a grave: you are confined
to one place for prolonged periods and subjected to ill-treatment, not allowed to have
access to the toilet except one time during the day [during the night detainees are
provided with containers to use instead of being allowed access to toilets] when the
detainee will be blindfolded and handcuffed.

Prisoners or detainees are reportedly not allowed access to any media
including newspapers, radios or any reading material of a political nature. This is
apparently intended to cut the detainees off from the outside world.

Such treatment is part of an ongoing pattern of torture and ill-treatment
of detainees being held incommunicado mostly, but not exclusively, at the Ministry of
Defence Detention Centre.

Amnesty International has documented a number of cases of torture
involving Dhinniyyah detainees including following arbitrary re-arrest: for example, weeks
after their release on bail in June 2002, following a campaign by politicians, members of
parliament and the Committee of Relatives of Dhinniyyah Detainees, several men including
Fadi Taybah, Ahmed Abu Ghosh, Ali al-Hamawi, Mazyad Ghayth, Wissam al-Umar,
and Muhyi al-Din Umays were re-arrested by members of Military Intelligence on
suspicion of involvement in the bombing of the house of Sergeant George Aquri, a
guard at Rumieh Prison, which resulted in the death of a woman. All those named above were
held incommunicado for two weeks in al-Qubba detention centre in Tripoli, Baabda
detention centre and the Ministry of Defence Detention Centre in al-Yarze. Other detainees
already held in connection with the Dhinniyyah events were also transferred from Rumieh
Prison to the Ministry of Defence Detention Centre for interrogation in connection with
the bombing incident. All were reportedly held blindfolded and beaten and remained
detained incommunicado for weeks despite vehemently denying any involvement in the bombing
incident, only to be released after it was established that they were arrested on the
basis of false information passed to the Military Intelligence.

Fadi Taybah was reportedly tortured and ill-treated at Baabda
Military Intelligence building where he was taken from al-Suwayqa Military Intelligence
building in Tripoli, before being moved to the Ministry of Defence Detention Centre in
al-Yarze. He was arrested in Tripoli on 12 August 2002, some two weeks after his release
on bail on 29 July. He was moved on the same day from Tripoli to Baabda, blindfolded
with his hands cuffed behind his back. He was reportedly severely beaten by cables on his
head, hands and stomach and verbally abused. His lawyer quoted him as saying that, during
this torture, he thought he recognized one of the perpetrators voices as a prison
guard working in Rumieh Prison. He was repeatedly tortured, including by electric shocks,
over three days while being denied food and drink to which he had access only on the third
day. Fadi Taybah told his lawyer that on the third day he was given a little food and a
cup of water by a guard who saw him bleeding from his hands and feet. After one days
detention at the Baabda detention centre building he was moved to another detention
centre where he continued to be tortured. Here he said he was beaten with cables on his
feet after water was poured on them, during interrogation by people with
non-Lebanese dialects (apparently Syrian intelligence officers) about the
bombing of George Aquris home. On 14 August Fadi Taybah was moved to the Ministry of
Defence Detention Centre, where he was not tortured or otherwise ill-treated. He was held
there until 20 August when he was moved to al-Qubba Military Intelligence building in
Tripoli and was released without charge later in the afternoon. On 28 August 2002 his
lawyer sent a letter of complaint about the torture of his client to President Emile
Lahoud but no answer has yet been received.

Less than a month after the release of those held in connection with the
bombing, Khaled Minawi, an Islamist activist aged 18, was arrested and referred to the
Military Court on charges of involvement with a terrorist organization. He was
arrested in October 2002 by the Military Intelligence in a wave of arrests targeting Sunni
Islamists allegedly associated to al-Qaida. Others arrested included Muhammad Ramiz
Sultan, a Lebanese/Australian national, and Ihab Husain Dafa, a Saudi Arabian
national. Following their arrest the three men were held incommunicado and later charged
with establishing a terrorist organization with the intent of carrying
out terrorist acts; harming the authority and integrity of the Lebanese
state; and forming with others a nucleus of a multi-national network belonging
to al-Qaida organization. The detainees were reportedly tortured or
ill-treated and there were fears that confessions may have been extracted under duress.
While held incommunicado for five days at the Ministry of Defence Detention Centre, Khaled
Minawi was reported to have been tortured by the ballanco and severely beaten in the
stomach and face, in addition to being denied food for five days. He had been tortured
before, while being held incommunicado in 2000, when he was 16 years old, following his
arrest in connection with his alleged involvement in the Dhinniyyah clashes of 1999.

Following their prolonged incommunicado detention, the Dhinniyyah
detainees were transferred to the maximum security Qasr Nura Prison. Umar Miqati
testified to Amnesty International about his ordeal in Qasr Nura:

We were about 50 men in one room. Space was scarce so we alternated
in sleeping. We would be allowed out of the room only once every 24 hours in small groups
for about three to five minutes, and to have showers every one or two weeks. Food was
meagre and several detainees suffered illnesses (Ihab al-Banna and Said Minawi
contracted scabies). After six weeks of incommunicado detention I was allowed access to a
lawyer who volunteered to take my case and managed to secure my release on bail of 500,000
Lebanese pounds.

The detainees were held at Qasr Nura for up to eight months, in small
cells cramped with between six to eight prisoners in each cell. They had no access to
beds, mattresses or covers and had to sleep with a thin sheet spread on the floor exposing
them to the cold weather. Ventilation was poor and there was no access to sun light, fresh
air or exercise.

Food and drinking water given to the detainees were reportedly of poor
quality and unhygienic. Despite this the families of the detainees were not allowed to
provide them with home-made food and were allowed to bring drinking water and clothes
only. According to Rule 87 of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
untried prisoners may, if they so desire, have their food procured at their own
expense from the outside, either through the administration or through their family or
friends.

As a result of these cruel, inhuman and degrading conditions and the lack
of facilities for personal hygiene many detainees suffered ill-health, including
contracting scabies. The detainees also suffered psychologically as a result of being
forced to have their beards shaved and the fact that family visitors were harassed.
Detainees would be allowed only ten minutes to talk to their families, during which time
physical contact with their young children was forbidden. Before being allowed visits
female relatives were body searched and subjected to harassment by female guards.

6.2 Rumieh Prison

After being held for months at Qasr Nura Dhinniyyah detainees were moved
to Rumieh Prison, where they continue to suffer ill-treatment. They are routinely
blindfolded when taken from Rumieh Prison to the court building, and any attempt to lift
the blindfold can lead to punishment. On 26 October 2002, detainee Khaled Akkawi,
was beaten while being taken to court by his guards when he told them that, as a result of
back pain, he could not bend to allow them to apply the blindfold. He reported the
incident to the Justice Council and the matter was taken up by the Public Prosecutor who
questioned the detainee and the guards involved in his transport and concluded that he had
been beaten. No punitive measures appear to have been taken against those involved.

The latest episode in the series of ill-treatment of detainees in Rumieh
Prison occurred when 17 detainees boycotted a hearing of their case before the Justice
Council on 17 January 2003. The detainees had informed the Justice Council in the previous
session that they were planning the boycott in protest against their ill-treatment and to
call for their release pending trial. On the day of the hearing the security forces
resorted to excessive force using batons and tear gas to force the detainees to end their
boycott. According to a statement issued by the Department of Internal Security the
detainees used sharp instruments of their own manufacture against the
officers. Scores of security and military intelligence members reportedly stormed the
prison and attacked the detainees while negotiations were underway to persuade them to
attend the court hearing. The incident resulted in the injury of more than 10 detainees
and five members of the security forces.

The Dhinniyyah detainees were reportedly beaten up and moved to solitary
confinement following the incident. In what appears to have been collective punishment
other detainees held in Rumieh Prison were also apparently beaten by the security forces
for allegedly showing solidarity with the Dhinniyyah detainees. This resulted in the
injury of around 10 detainees, some seriously. Two of these, Ihab al-Banna and Said
Minawi, were admitted to Dhahr al-Bashiq Hospital for treatment and on their return to
prison were held incommunicado for over a week and denied access to their families and
lawyers. The officers appear to have resorted to force contrary to Lebanese prison rules
and international standards including the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and
Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials which states in Principle 15 that [l]aw
enforcement officials, in their relations with persons in custody or detention, shall not
use force, except when strictly necessary for the maintenance of security and order within
the institution, or when personal safety is threatened.

According to information received by Amnesty International detainees were
moved to solitary confinement and denied food for two days while held in cells without
access to natural light. The detainees reportedly had their beards, which they keep as a
symbol of religious obligation, forcibly shaved off by security officers and their Islamic
books and other religious literature were reportedly desecrated and trodden
on, apparently as a punishment. No independent investigation is known to have been carried
out into these events.

Earlier in May 2002 up to 18 detainees staged a three-week hunger strike
in protest against their prolonged detention and ill-treatment in prison. The authorities
responded by introducing harsh measures against those involved, including prolonged
solitary confinement. This attracted wide scale media attention and added fuel to the
campaign for the resolution of the Dhinniyyah case. Immediately after the hunger strike
the detainees were moved to solitary confinement, denied access to families and lawyers
and deprived of fresh air and sunlight. The punitive measures introduced were endorsed by
the Public Prosecutor, 'Adnan 'Addoum, who said that the law stipulates placing those
involved in hunger strikes into solitary confinement. The hunger strike led to the
deterioration of the health of Ahmad al-Darj who had been suffering from an untreated leg
injury apparently sustained during the Dhinniyyah clashes; Umar al-Rifai who
suffers from a heart condition; and Ahmad Abu-Ghosh who suffered severe weakness and
exhaustion which led to his being unable to stand on his feet. The ill-treatment of those
on hunger strike was compounded by the denial of access to washing and clean clothes.

7. Unfair trial before the Justice Council

In 2001 the Dhinniyyah detainees were referred to the Justice Council, a
special court to which cases are referred by decree from the Council of Ministers based on
a proposal by the Minister of Justice and endorsed by the Judiciary Council. The Justice
Council is formed of five judges of the Court of Cassation with the head of the Court of
Cassation as its president. The court ensures legal representation for the accused and
allows defence lawyers access to case documents; its procedures and hearings are public
and attended by the media. Amnesty International delegates have in the past attended
Justice Council hearings.

The decision of the Justice Council is final and not subject to appeal.
According to Article 356 of the NCCP the Justice Council has jurisdiction to deal with
offences related to state security, espionage, and terrorism as provided by
the Penal Code; all offences contained in Law 11 of 1958; and all offences related to
firearms and weapons as provided by the Penal Code and the Military Justice Act. Cases
involving such offences which are already being considered by ordinary and military courts
may be referred to the Justice Council which has jurisdiction to deal with civilian and
military offenders.

The prosecution is represented in the Justice Council by the Public
Prosecutor or a person delegated by the Public Prosecutor. While the Justice Council in
theory follows the same procedures adopted by ordinary courts as provided by the NCCP, it
is in practice the subject of intervention by the executive and the Public Prosecutor who,
according to Article 367 of the NCCP, has the right to call for additional investigations
into case(s) under consideration by the Justice Council. It appears that most of the
offences considered by the Justice Council have so far been of a political nature mainly
involving defendants belonging to political, religious or other groups opposed in one way
or the other to the government. As such the choice of referring the cases to the Justice
Council and the way they are prosecuted may be based on political considerations rather
than legal merit. In what appears to be discrimination by authorities against the
Dhinniyyah detainees, their cases were referred to the Justice Council, while cases of
people from other political groups with similar offences including state security offences
were not. Nor were cases involving high profile political killings during the civil war
referred to Justice Council. Article 26 of the ICCPR states [a]ll persons are equal
before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the
law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all
persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status.

Among the serious flaws of the Justice Council is that it has no
jurisdiction over pre-trial detention procedures including interrogation, and this may be
one of the reasons why it is unable to investigate claims of torture and other abuses
during pre-trial detention. Principle 3 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the
Judiciary

states [the] judiciary shall have jurisdiction over all issues of a
judicial nature and shall have exclusive authority to decide whether an issue submitted
for its decision is within its competence as defined by law. Principle 5 emphasizes
the right to be tried before an ordinary court: [everyone] shall have the right to
be tried by ordinary courts or tribunals using established legal procedures. Tribunals
that do not use the duly established procedures of the legal process shall not be created
to displace the jurisdiction belonging to the ordinary courts or judicial tribunals.

Many of the Dhinniyyah detainees told Amnesty International about such
abuses in pre-trial detention. Among them is defendant, Dr Muhammad Khaled, who states:

I was interrogated twice by the investigating magistrate. The second
interrogation took place after I was transferred to Qasr Nura Prison where I told the
magistrate that I needed to change my statement and he replied, we will look into
that. My demand was not met so I told my lawyer to make a representation to the
magistrate to this effect, but to my surprise the lawyer said it was too late and that I
could make any changes to my statement when I was brought before the court. Later when I
had the opportunity to read the documents after being moved to Rumieh Prison, one month
after the interrogation, I realized that my statement had been distorted to the extent
that questions I answered with no were changed into yes.

It also appears that the Minister of Justice has discretion over which
cases are referred to the Justice Council given the absence in the NCCP of clear criteria
for selecting or proposing cases to be tried by the Justice Council. The arbitrariness of
selection of cases referred by the Council of Ministers for consideration by the Justice
Council is exemplified by the fact that cases involving collaboration with
Israel which may be categorized as espionage are referred to the Military Court and not
the Justice Council which has jurisdiction over such offences. This remains the case even
though trials before the Military Court fall even shorter of international standards for
fair trial than trials before the Justice Council. So far, it appears that since the end
of the civil war the cases brought before the Justice Council have mostly involved
high-profile anti-government figures belonging to unauthorized Christian or Sunni Islamist
political organizations.

Following the examination in 1997 of the last periodic report by Lebanon
on its implementation of the ICCPR, the HRC stated that some aspects of the State
partys legal system do not conform with the provisions of the [ICCPR]
decisions passed by the Justice Council are not subject to appeal, which is contrary to
article 14, paragraph 5, of [the ICCPR]. The HRC expressed concern about the
independence and impartiality of the State partys judiciary and failure of the
State party to provide citizens with effective remedies and appeal procedures for
their grievances. The HRC recommended that the State party review, as a
matter of urgency, the procedures governing the appointment of members of the judiciary,
with a view to ensuring their full independence. Six years on, none of these
concerns has been addressed by the Lebanese authorities, as far as Amnesty International
is aware.

Members of the Justice Council are usually senior members of the Court of
Cassation, an arrangement which often limits the time they can devote to the proceedings
of the Justice Council. One consequence of this is routine delays of hearings held at the
Justice Council which, as is evident in this case, can continue for years in a manner that
undermines the right to fair trial. Since the Dhinniyyah case was referred to the Justice
Council in early 2001 only six of the dozens of defendants charged have had their cases
heard.

The Justice Council sessions have so far been interrupted by a myriad of
complaints lodged with the court by individual defendants regarding extraction of
confessions under torture, repeated incidents of ill-treatment and aspects of
unfairness of their trials. For example, during the hearing which took place on 8 June
2002, detainees who had been on hunger strike for weeks and whose health had deteriorated
seriously as a result were forced to attend the hearing. It was adjourned shortly after as
the hunger strikers were too weak to walk or stand without assistance. This session, like
the previous one, was interrupted by further complaints by the detainees, including those
on hunger strike, about increasing ill-treatment at Rumieh Prison, allegedly being
prevented from praying and the placing of hunger strikers in solitary confinement. One
defendant said they were told by a prison official that the measures were introduced
according to instructions from the Public Prosecutor, Adnan Addoum. The Public
Prosecutor, who was present at the session, responded by stating that the Public
Prosecutor has not given any directives to the prison authority regarding the detainees
and according to regulations any person on hunger strike is moved to solitary
confinement. However, the Justice Council did not initiate any inquiry into the
allegations made by the defendants regarding their ill-treatment and the punitive measures
taken against hunger strikers.

The Justice Council also failed to order an independent and impartial
investigation into allegations made by defendants, including Ihab al-Bana, Yahya Miqati
and Abd al-Munim Zarur, during previous hearings about their torture and
ill-treatment during incommunicado detention and the subsequent extraction of
confessions. During a court session on 30 November 2001 Abd
al-Munim Zarur stated that he had been beaten and coerced to make statements
incriminating himself while being interrogated at the Ministry of Defence Detention
Centre. He said that taking part in the Dhinniyyah encampment of 1999 was for the purpose
of worship and prayers and not for military training as written in the statement
attributed to him by the investigating magistrate. He insisted that during the
interrogations at the Ministry of Defence he was coerced to confess that he had joined the
Dhinniyyah encampment of 1999 with the intention of taking part in military training and
to plot against the army. When asked by the Justice Council as to why he had made the same
statement before the investigating magistrate he said he thought the investigating
magistrate was a member of the Military Intelligence and not a judge.

8. National calls for respect of the Dhinniyyah detainees rights

The Dhinniyyah case has attracted some attention within the political and
religious circles in Lebanon leading to calls for the expediting of the trial of
detainees. In June 2002 a delegation comprising the Minister of Education, Abd
al-Rahim Murad, the Minister of Public Works and Transport, Najib Miqati, and members of
parliament met with the Minister of Justice, Samir Jisr, to raise concerns about the
prolonged detention without trial of the Dhinniyyah group and their detention conditions.
The delegation urged the Minister of Justice to expedite the trial of the detainees,
release the detainees pending their trial and improve conditions of detention. The Mufti
of the Republic and the spiritual leader of the Sunni Muslim community in Lebanon, Shaykh
Muhammad Rashid Qabbani, also demanded a speedy resolution of the Dhinniyyah case,
following a meeting in June 2002 with a delegation of Sunni Islamic organizations,
scholars from the north, and the Committee of Relatives of the Dhinniyyah Detainees.
Shaykh Qabbani said, I call on all officials in the country for solidarity to end
the legacies of the Dhinniyyah events through a just and speedy trial of the detainees and
their release pending trial according to laws and regulations. He said any delay in
the resolution of the case is harmful to Lebanon and its a concern for human
rights.

Tripoli MP, Misbah al-Ahdab, in a press conference in Tripoli in December
2001, expressed concern at certain politically motivated measures by the
judiciary and the preferential treatment of other detainees held on charges related to
internal state security. He referred to the release of certain detainees held on internal
state security offences, pending trial, in contrast to the continuing detention of those
held in connection with the Dhinniyyah clashes contrary to the constitutional right
of those to be treated equally with others, and criticized the delay in the trial of
the detainees before the Justice Council. In May 2002 Misbah al-Ahdab raised the issue of
the Dhinniyyah detainees with the Speaker of parliament through whom he directed a
question to the government on why the judiciary refuses the release of certain detainees
while releasing others. He also asked how long their detention would continue since the
Justice Council was not convening regularly to reach a judgment.

Another member of parliament, Ahmad Fitfit, called in a press conference
in June 2002 for the release of those Dhinniyyah detainees whom the investigations show
had not been directly involved in the Dhinniyyah events. He said there are a number of
innocent young men in detention who must be released according to the NCCP, and went on to
criticise officials who had levelled uncorroborated accusations against these men
including allegations of membership of al-Qaida.

9. Conclusion and recommendations

Amnesty International has raised in this report a number of concerns
related to the Dhinniyyah detainees. Among these concerns are: prolonged incommunicado
detention during which the detainees were reportedly tortured and ill-treated; extraction
of confessions under torture; violations of the rights to the presumption of
innocence; trials that fall short of international standards for fair trial; and fears
that detainees may face the death penalty. Amnesty International urges the Lebanese
authorities to take, as a matter of urgency, measures addressing these concerns, and to
ensure that the rights of the Dhinniyyah detainees are respected at all times. The
authorities must honour their obligations under the ICCPR and CAT and ensure that the
provisions of these treaties are fully implemented in law and practice. Amnesty
International is, therefore, calling on the Lebanese authorities to implement the
following recommendations:

Torture and ill-treatment

Order an independent, impartial and effective investigation into all
allegations of torture or ill-treatment alleged by the Dhinniyyah detainees. This should
include:

- allegations of torture during incommunicado detention and all other
allegations of ill-treatment while in custody, including in Rumieh Prison;

- such investigations should be carried out according to international
standards related to investigation of torture and ill-treatment including the UN
Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;

- members of the investigating body should be independent, competent and
impartial and have access to independent medical and other expertise;

- the result of such investigations should be made public. Victims should
be provided with reparation and any perpetrators brought to justice in accordance with
international standards for fair trials.

Implement the CAT to which Lebanon acceded in 2000. This should include
incorporation of its provisions in Lebanese laws with a view to ensuring that torture is
prohibited legally and in practise. As a further step in this direction the authorities
should ratify the Optional Protocol to the CAT.

Ratify the First Optional Protocol to ICCPR and the declaration under
Article 22 of the CAT that individuals can bring complaints about the violations of their
rights under this Convention to the relevant UN Committee.

Extraction of confessions under torture

All allegations of extraction of confessions under torture must be
investigated according to international standards. The judicial institutions involved in
the trial of the Dhinniyyah detainees must ensure that any confessions believed to have
been taken in such a manner are excluded from judicial proceedings, as required by the
CAT.

Incommunicado detention

Ensure that detainees are not subjected to prolonged incommunicado
detention as this facilitates torture and constitutes a form of cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment. Detainees must be held in recognizable places of detention in humane
conditions.

Safeguards in pre-trial detention

Introduce measures, as a matter of urgency, to ensure that the rights of
the Dhinniyyah detainees and other pre-trial prisoners are respected at all times. This
should include application of all the rights already incorporated in Lebanese law and
implementation of all other guarantees provided by international standards and treaties to
which Lebanon is a state party.

Treatment of untried prisoners

Ensure that the Dhinniyyah detainees right to the presumption of
innocence is respected and that they are humanely treated as untried prisoners. The
authorities should implement all relevant international treaties and standards including
the ICCPR, Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment, and the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
These include the requirement for segregation of untried prisoners from convicted
prisoners and that they are treated in a manner appropriate to their status as unconvicted
detainees.

Provide proper medical care including treatment at specialist institutions
or civil hospitals to sick detainees, whose calls for such treatment supported by medical
reports, have so far been unheeded. As required by international standards all such
medical care should be provided free of charge.

The right to fair trial

Ensure that the Dhinniyyah detainees are given a fair trial in accordance
with international treaties and standards. As a pre-requisite the detainees should be
tried before a competent and impartial court established by law without any interference
of political or any other nature with the judges having exclusive power to decide on
matters of judicial nature.

Ensure that the defendants are treated on an equal footing in court
vis-à-vis the state, in accordance with the principle of equality of arms.
The judicial authorities must in particular take measures to prevent the prosecution from
disclosing information about the case outside the court which could prejudice the
detainees right to receive a fair trial.

Take, as matter of urgency, measures to expedite the trials of the
Dhinniyyah detainees with a view to finalizing the trials without undue delay as required
by international standards.

Solitary confinement and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

Take immediate steps to ensure that the Dhinniyyah detainees are
well-treated and not subjected to any form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The
authorities must in particular stop repeated confinement of detainees in dark cells or
subjection to any other unlawful punishment prejudicial to their mental and physical
health.

Death penalty

Under no circumstance should any of the Dhinniyyah detainees be given the
death penalty, which Amnesty International opposes in all cases as the ultimate form of
torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. To ensure that the death penalty is
not applied in this case the authorities must take immediate measures to allow the
detainees to be tried before an ordinary court and not before special courts or according
to exceptional laws such as Law 11 of 1958.

As a step towards the abolition of the death penalty the authorities
should declare a moratorium on executions and consider the ratification of the Second
Optional Protocol to the ICCPR.

Article 7 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment defines "torture" as Aany act by which severe
pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for
such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession,
punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having
committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on
discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person
acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from,
inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.@

There are around 19 recognized religious sects in Lebanon governed by
their own personal status laws. Normally allocation of positions in the civil service and
other institutions tend to follow a sectarian balance.

4 Under the provisions of the old CCP, which was in force when the
Dhinniyyah detainees were arrested, the Prosecution is obliged to ensure that a detainee
is brought before a judge within 24 hours or released (Article 102). If a detainee is not
brought before the examining magistrate within 24 hours, the detention is considered
deprivation of personal freedom, an offence punishable under the Penal Code. This law also
allowed the detainee the right to communicate with his/her family following appearance
before the examining magistrate, and gave the examining magistrate the right to deny the
detainee contact with the outside world for up to 10 days, renewable once only.

An-Nahar Arabic Daily, Lebanon, 2 March 2003.

Adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime
and the Treatment of Offenders held at Milan from 26 August to 6 September 1985 and
endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13
December 1985.